The Problem

Hence the bolded is why team play comes in. Also, it's either the archer stalls the knight til a fellow archer/knight comes to help him/her or vice versa with the knight. Also, if you're chasing one archer back to his/her spot with noone around, you've got a clear road for your other team mates to approach the enemy base or a a few builders to set up offensive fortresses. The problem about you is that you think knight's have pure abilities to "lone-wolf", I have to say the same with archers as well, usually when I run into a knight, I'll try to kite him/her to where my team members at. Also when a knight throws a bomb right behind you, you've got a few options, either run forward the jump over his head which wouldn't turn out good or you can try other methods like climbing up trees. Although this wouldn't really work if the battle is in flat ground, which would automatically guarantees you a death by bomb. Also, I'm here to argue with people that can provide at least some kind of support instead of claiming it's "reeeallly" easy. Just putting it out there that I rather argue with people who act like people and not some kind of cartoon character?

 

I'm sorry, I just thought that if you come here to argue about balance you are good enough to be able to spot the difference between the old and the new bombs.

 

It's kinda funny to see everyone jumping on Spoolooni's shit when in reality, he's exactly right.

What's the point of nerfing and buffing certain classes/items/whatever when there are things gradually being added that drastically change the balance of the game?

I believe the OP referenced that builders/building is overpowered, am I correct? How has this devolved into some bullshit about archers? The main problem here is that as of now, there are few options to bringing down structures. Either have a competent combat builder, a catapult, or a keg. Otherwise, that's it.

But the point is, why are we going to slowly retract from classes and the game's fundamentals before half of the features even get introduced? I agree that bomb jumps are sort of overpowered. But since held-jumps are much more difficult than before, I feel like it's pretty tough to do superhero jumps, and those that can do it are already skilled enough that they probably don't even need it to advance the field anyway.

If we're going to talk about overpowered classes, I truly feel that the archer is most guilty. Rayne and I were playing last night and were smoking the other team, then suddenly half of their 24 man team went archer, camped on top of a tower and made it so it was next to impossible to do anything. Any attempts to tunnel under them were thwarted by knights and builders entombing. Marching shield can only do so much; a dozen or so archers aiming at 3 knights with fully charged arrows, you're bound to die over and over again. Can't build over because any chance they get on spamming arrows at a builder were taken advantage of. It's a shame; people are FREAKING OUT because the third zoom level was removed, but even that nerf ended up hurting knights and builders more than the ARCHERS WHO ARE BITCHING ABOUT IT. Third level zoom doesn't hinder your ability to spam the fuck out of arrows. I'm sorry, I don't think it's a viable tactic, and it's a shame that half of our team ended up having to go archer as well just to counter it, because there was NO WAY you were getting within range of doing anything useful.

The most prevalent problem I'm seeing in this thread is that most people are looking at the development of this game as if MM and Geti were developing this game SOLELY FOR YOU. Very few of us are looking at the bigger picture, looking at the community as a whole as opposed to little things that piss us off. Yeah, I fucking hate when builders can tunnel underneath of us and entomb themselves in while we frantically try to reach them, but there are ways of preventing this. Also, some people enjoy it, feel it adds to the challenge and strategy. (Mind you, I'm not talking about entombing when you're the last player alive on your team, that's a pussy move.) Bomb jumping can be countered too with a simple wall with a shallow spike pit below it; knight crashes into the wall and falls into the pit, getting hurt or killed. Arrow spam, however, when we're talking upwards of 6+ archers camped out of reach with at least 1-3 knights taking out shields on the ground, there's really no way around that. You can say, "Well, just tunnel underneath of them. Just build over top of them." If those are the only strategies against arrow spam, then we're just adding to the increasing problem of shitty tunnels and spacebridges. Don't we have a bunch of threads here where it's pretty much agreed upon that skybridges and derptunnels are ridiculous and can be game-breaking?

You all need to realize that the devs aren't making this game for you as a SINGULARITY. They are looking at things based on the bigger picture, which is why Geti said that third level zoom is gone for good, even though tons of you were saying how you wanna quit just because of that. Which, again, is pathetic in itself.

The game is going to go through a ton of changes, and the best you can do is adapt. While community input is great for problems like bugs, glitches, exploits, etc., we really have no place to tell the developers where we want THEIR game to go. Yeah, we can make suggestions and throw out some ideas and criticisms, but ultimately it's not our game to make. MM and Geti have already done a fantastic job; I haven't been around long at all, but I have seen this game go through major changes and each time it captivates me. For fuck's sake, the game is STILL in alpha, and I haven't been able to go more than a day without playing it.

So frankly, I think that while we all have major (or even minor) gripes about how this game works, I trust that the developers know what they're doing. KAG is pretty damned successful as it is, and I can only see it flourish from here on out. Do I think building is overpowered? Again, no. I think it's one of the things that adds charm, strategy and fun to the game. It's like Legos, only your little Lego man can actually fight, build, kill, and do so many other things.

tl;dr version - Geti and MM are making the game based on the bigger picture, not based on what each individual wants. They're very good at what they do and I think we need to put some faith in them. I also think we need to wait for the other siege items and other things to be implemented before we even think of nerfing anything.

Anyways, I really don't have much else to say, I just think that a lot of you have it in your mind that the game should be developed how YOU want, as opposed to how it SHOULD be done.

 

Yes I agree fully with the trap bridge nerfs as it generally forced many archers to leave their bases to fight on ground as well as removing the ability to mindlessly spam from sky-bridges. Also the only thing I agree upon about building is sky bridges and tunnels, we all know they are hindrances and can really defer the ground battle theme KAG was SUPPOSED to have. As for archers, I can see a lot more offensive archers being born every game, even more so to exploit the night darkness and camouflage in the grass. I myself as an archer already love being an offensive unit, utilizing every tree in existence and every hole to my advantage while assisting my fellow knights. In fact if anything, people wanted archers to leave their miserable nests and glorify their true capabilities and unleash new tactics. What really saddens me though, through the process of archers making such an revolutionary approach to their game play, people who dislike them suggest that archers be punished in close combat. Now we're really digging archers who play offensive and forcing them back to square one which is what Bone is mentioning about, castle archer spam.

Generally speaking, I think my KD ratio have increased a lot more as soon as I left my entrenched habits to play more offensively and aid my team mates, in fact, any archer that moves along side with the squad really does increase man power especially in night fall where arrows and archers are harder to see as mentioned in my first paragraph. I just believe that we're not making progress with nerfs, and we should really wait things out. Funny thing is, I could easily expect the same thread to pop out after new released siege weapons and more nerfs to come around just by judging how people rather do things in this community.

Also, I never knew there was a third level zoom o_O. I sworn I could have used it before it's gone, such a waste.

I agree that the new bombs are not as powerful as before, but generally speaking, they don't deserve any more nerfs or buffs than what they are. I feel that people are thinking these bombs are way to weak or powerful, in fact I'm more or less the middle man in this issue. Bombs are still one of the most powerful aspects in the game especially in close quarter combat with many structures that disable people from getting away from that insta-kill radius like you spoke about.

I've played as an offensive builder to help my knights build a bridge, as we are ontop of a broken structure, all it took was a bomb coming from above us to destroy us all except the knights who shielded themselves. 1/2 of us tried to retrieve backwards but the bomb rolled in our general direction causing the insta-kill radius to be able to come in contact with our units. Hence is why I repeatedly argued that just because the bomb have been nerfed doesn't mean knights cannot exploit the bowling aspect of it. Similarly with archers not being able to trap bridge spam, they are still able to get good shots, if not, better shots while being on ground.

Also, like I've said before so many damn times, I'm defending both knight and archer from any more nerfs and I feel that we're not making positive changes if the pencil has been sharpened way too much to the extend that anyone's hand cannot grip it any longer.

 

Meh, I wasn't pointing out anyone in particular, it's just based on a lot of the posts in here, it seems like everyone wants the game to play the way they want it to. That's all.

 

The problem with Capture the Flag, specifically is not that the game is imbalanced. In fact I'd say KAG is a very balanced game, there's no one building/strategy/class that is hugely overcentralizing or uncounterable. The problem with the game isn't balance, the problem with Capture the Flag is that it's stagnant. What does that mean? It means that there are several mechanics in the game that prevent either team from truly pushing into the enemy team's base to actually sieze the flag. This causes matches to become drawn out and essentially they never end, which, unfortunately, is boring. It's why every single server runs CTF with a reinforcement limit, so that rounds can actually come to a conclusion.

What's causing it?
Obviously everybody has their opinion, buildings are too strong, archers are too strong, catapults are too strong, etc etc etc. It's common practice for gamers to blame things that are overpowered for the problems in a game, it's just easier for people to get their head around the concept of "Mewtwo is overpowered" than it is to get deep into game flow mechanics.

Personally, I believe that there's 2 main issues causing CTF to stagnate,
a) The spawning system. KAG uses a continual spawning system, wherein X seconds after you die, you respawn. This system promotes continual headbutting in the center of the map, killing people isn't rewarded with any real increase in momentum since there's a constant stream of reinforcements coming from the spawn point. This method of spawning does not in any way promote push/pull mechanics and usually causes stalemates, since punishment for failure is minimal and reward for success is equally minimal. The alternative of this spawn system is a fairly widely employed Group Respawn system, wherein every X seconds, everybody on your team who is currently dead respawns. Often, whenever someone dies on your team, Y seconds will be added onto the current countdown before everybody respawns, although not every system of Group Respawn does that. What does this system accomplish? Whenever you die, you cause your entire team's wave of reinforcements to be pushed back, you're giving the enemy team more time to push in and seize their objectives and solidify their position. When one team gets put at a disadvantage, they need to fall back and cut their losses, as any further deaths will only give the enemy more time. However, when that team's reinforcements do spawn, they are given a strong chance to counterpush, possibly retaking lost territory, or even taking enemy territory. This system causes a much more dynamic Push/Pull effect on the gameplay and it creates much better game flow for objective-based games.
b) The Flag's location. In KAG, the flags are located on complete opposite sides of the map directly on top of the enemy's spawn point. This could not possibly be a more difficult location to access, putting the flag here makes it virtually impossible to get in and actually capture the flag unless the entire enemy team's base has been completely demolished. The flag should be further forward, making it easier to access, and obviously with some mechanic in place to prevent entombing the flag from being possible. Even now, you can entomb the flag in team doors, but if it wasn't on top of the spawn you could entomb it in stone.

 

A) Outposts.

B) I agree with you on certain points but traditionally, if the flag's location is at the furthest end of each map, that'll promote the fairest game play even in the tightest map possible. Also, since flags are traditionally notched on each team's tent, it's generally up to the map maker where they decide the flag to be. Generally speaking, flag positioning is something we can't really control universally.

 

Honestly, if this game didn't have a set respawn for everyone, I wouldn't play it. Not only that, but group respawns would be ridiculous. You could have a few people who are godlike and wouldn't die, or builders who would entomb themselves or turtle somewhere as to not get killed. Therefore, you'd be sitting on your hands for far too long.

As for the flag location... You'd rather both flags be in the center? Okay, lemme just rush to the middle as soon as the game starts, bomb jump and/or kill any enemies rushing MY flag, grab it and win. That doesn't exactly seem like a good compromise.

Why does everyone want these games to be FASTER? There are rapid CTF games everywhere, and if you want even QUICKER games, feel free to start your own limited respawn game with a 10 minute time limit and no build phase. That'll get you some quick games.

Personally, I love love LOVE being in a match that lasts upwards of an hour or two. Even if I'm dead and out of respawns, I love to watch the game as a spectator and team chat helpful things. Long matches are exciting because they keep a sense of suspense and the team that perseveres will win. If both teams are equally skilled, long matches are fun and challenging because you're getting a real sense of fair play. I can't possibly be the ONLY person that enjoys long matches.

Now, this isn't to say that I love watching a last stand where both teams have two archers camping behind a wall and popping out occasionally to shoot an arrow randomly into the sky. At this point, this is where voting for the next map comes into play. If you have two guys left, the flag is in a deep hole and the other team's final builder is entombing himself, vote for the next map. Generally I'm annoyed by voting for next, but in situations like that I'm GLAD to hit F12.

Entombing with teamdoors is so easy to counter it's not even funny.

DOOR CONVERSIONS. DOOR CONVERSIONS. Why nobody ever EVER does this is beyond me. Instead I'll see builders mindlessly thwacking at doors for hours when you could just hit it once and replace it with your OWN team's door. Not only is it effective for getting INTO the other team's structures, it's a good way to keep enemy knights in. It will take them some time to knock out those doors, buying precious time for you to build a ladder up and over, grabbing and capping the flag.

While I agree that some matches tend to get boring (in the instances I've stated) I get so annoyed when some kid dies with no respawns and immediately votes for the next map, even when the other team is steamrolling through their base towards either the final few enemies or the flag.

 

It'll defeat the purpose of having to build around your flag <-- main reason to never support such an idea.

 

Spoolooni, can you please stop quoting entire walls of text? This is like the third time. It's fairly poor forum behaviour to do so, as we don't need to reread something that was posted just above you.

Also you responses are pretty irrelevent. Outposts don't change how spawning works and making both team's flags closer by an equal amount won't unbalance te game.

Thebonesauce, weren't you just complaining about people focusing too much on their own likes/dislikes? From my experience talking to other clans, and even just from the contents of this thread alone, I think most people (who actually play/have played clan matches) would probably agree that games take far too lnog in their current state.

You've also misunderstood his spawn suggestion, I suggest you read it again. He's suggesting that everyone who is currently dead respawns at once, regardless if there are still players living.

He didn't say put both spawns in the center, that's a gross exaggeration and a poor way to conduct a conversation.

Ressa: Great post. Though I agree that it doesn't pay to look at a game problem over simplistically, I think buildings are a more central issue than you are giving it credit for, as it directly or indirectly creates nearly all of the other most complained about problems (as I briefly discussed in the OP).

I had suggested wave spawning a while back, though it received next to no attention. Geti has informed us there will be a major mechanic shakeup as soon as they get back, and while I think he mainly meant combat I'll make sure to remember to bring this up.

Having flags in front of the spawn is a good diea and was originally planned, however I think the problem with this is that there would then be nothing to stop people from just completely entombing their flag and piling on huges masses of stone around it during the build phase or during longer games. I think this may be less of a problem in organized games and would probably be a good idea once building gets slowed down considerably though.

 

You quote WOT so that people can compare your point/agreement/disagreement as well as allowing you to bold/highlight certain points. Also you should have told me an off topic concern in PM in a proper fashion before being a hypocrite. You claim outposts don't change spawning works, but his problem is the constant tug of war issue regarding the common convergent boundary of battle. He might mention that the spawning time interval is causing the problems, when the counter to that is an outpost which will dramatically increase the pressure point by saturating the contested area with your team mates.

Also TheBonesauce isn't entirely wrong on his point, because taking map dimensions into consideration, there'll be chances that the flags will be head to head. Unless you completely remodel the tents to not be the main holder for the flag, any maker can really decide where to put their spawn points/flag. Regarding your post about buildings, you still seem rather "bitter" about the existence of the building aspect, if that is such an issue, than I support an option to disable buildings for those who want to host a basic sword fight. Buildings are just way too dynamic and it's barely coherent to even think about messing with it's factors. My opinions generally falls on giving more offensive content to allow more tactical advantages against structures in general. Also wave spawning methods? It's just like chess but in a more silly fashion and you pretty much remove a large time frame of gameplay from each and every player having to wait each wave out before re-spawning. You have to think of less aggressive approaches, such an idea will even change certain balancing aspects. I'm sure no one exactly wants to get shot by 3 arrows the minute you leave a castle and having to stay out another wave. Not to mention it encourages people to turtle more while making players feel less confident of leaving their base.

 

This game isn't in full release, so you can expect changes. And I do agree that spawning needs a change, but not the God awful methods like BF3/MW3 use, but more like TF2, where the players spawn in an area where they are safe, unless the game has been lost. With that, the spawn WOULDN'T be the flag.

 

I know but you're quoting like eight paragraphs to quote one or two sentences. But anyways you're right, I will contact you via pm or you can contact me w/e. How am I a hypocrite?

Ok that's a fair point, that outposts do make an important difference and this should be kept in mind. However this is significantly lessened by the fact that your spawn time get longer proportional to how close you die to your spawn and the main problem still remains that the trickle model of spawning carries inherent problems.

We are having this discussion because we expect changes to happen, and maybe what is talked about here can affect those changes positively. Just because the game will change doesn't mean these issues will be resolved; if its not something that explicitly thought about these problems could get worse with change.

 

I don't exactly feel that it's right to cut out most of the content which can be just as important to the person's sentence, also It'll be less bias to not nit pick certain points that can be more important than the ones I may prefer.

As I said before, wave spawning, not a good idea. Maybe instead of forcing a universal idea, you should allow players to access options to enable things like high spawn time frames or instant spawn.

 

Nah man, just do the -snip- thing and quote the things you would otherwise bold. You can read the entire quoted text by clicking the little arrow that appears on the quote, which is like quoting the whole thing but without having to duplicate their post in yours. It's not nearly as efficient when you and the quoted compare points, but it keeps the thread a whole lot cleaner for the all the other observers to read.

In a few pages I've pretty much gotten lost as to what this thread is about anymore. Just imo, but the argument look's like it's more prone to growing rather that narrowing. Encompassing all the points is great but there are in anything naturally just a few things that are intrinsically wrong, and if you want to solve this "problem" we'd better find out what they are and build up from there. Specific nerfs and things, later.

 

This.

The focus should be on pubs, because more people play them and because clan matches are a lot more controlled. It's very common for competitive games to have very specific rules which allow them to play the type of game they want to play, getting the balance of the game right for a pub is the priority.

Surely this gives greater advantage to the defending team as the frontline is closer to their spawn? We should maintain spawn staggering to allow an attacking team to press their advantage, and perhaps even fix it so that a team that is doing well spawns faster to avoid stalemate.

To counter that, buildings are the unique selling point of this game. I agree that the pre-build phase results in stupid levels of building, and we should probably not allow builders to instantly lay down blocks but require them to hold down for a bit, which was suggested in the OP I believe.

I've already said, but fixing it to give advantage to the team that is winning will discourage stalemates.

Also makes it impossible to cap, but given that in most pub games people focus more on killing than capping I think you are right that it's best to leave the flag atop the spawn for now.

 

This have been suggested so many times before. Building is fine the way they are as both teams have the same exact privileged to fortify themselves in build phase. Not to mention, if you create such a limit, it'll be harder for offensive builders to carry out their jobs to building bridges for their team members to cross spike pits, helping their team get to enemy structures quicker or building offensive structures. Keep in mind that during build phases, buildings of large sizes are generally built when you get a full participating force of builders to saturate their efforts in one defensive project rather than creating their own mini towers. A block placement time interval might "seem" to solve the problems but it's going to create more problems for the offensive side who wish to build forward structures and make use of "ruins" in certain maps, in fact, as stated in the very first page, in stead of nerfing buildings, we should allow builders to "break" blocks faster allowing offensive builders to take down buildings of large mass.


However, the only problem about building might seem to be sky-bridges, as mentioned by me a lot of times. There definitely has to be some kind of limit to disallow 1 unit width structures to stick our horizontally in the most game-breaking and abnormal ways.